|
User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 2
What are you talking about?I removed information from the Bill O'Reilly article because the only citation was from "frankenlies.com," not a valid source. This wasn't "unconstructive." I'm removing your comments from my page, and do not add them again. If you really want to talk about this, and/or explain why you think frankenlies.com is an acceptable source, do so in an appropriate manner. Don't just leave vague comments on my talk page that insinuate I've committed vandalism.CloutierFan02 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Explain YourselfYeah so you put on my talk page that I put innapropriate discussion in Fox News controversies? Sorry if I didn't realize I was talking to a wikipedia mod but I have a right to say what I feel. And another thing, my post wasn't incivil I was just explaining my point of view. Also to your next point that the discussion is "half a year old", it doesn't matter as you obviously read it again. The point wasn't to continue the discussion, it was so that people who would read later wouldn't just see a ton of liberals bashing Fox and supporting Ron Paul. Don't you want these discussions to be fair and balanced? If you don't like my political views that's just dandy, but don't threaten to block me because I decided to post my point of view. 76.87.38.244 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Request to Assume Good FaithPlease assume good faith by talking about any objections you have to issues regarding an article on the discussion page of that article before giving out warnings. By assuming good faith, we can make wikipedia a better place for everyone. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Request to Engage in Discussions Before Removing Content
questionWhy does it always seem that you do not do much of any work here on wikipedia but instead like to poke your neck into heated situations? Or on just select articles? You've left my curiosity out in the wild. Thankyou. 71.225.204.68 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dumba$$!!User:69.244.181.184 is not Rynort. Now apologize and resign from Wikipedia IMMEDIATELY. You are guilty of 1)Not assuming good faith 2)Not being nice Several other things as well like being a liberal weenie, but that's OBVIOUSLY not against the rules lest there'd be no one left to CONTROL wikipedia lol!! Speaking of laughing my A$$ off, I cracked up until I almost cried laughing at your 'Sherlock Holmes' insight that User:69.244.181.184 = Rynort coupled by your psychic 'no one is fooled.' 68.40.200.77 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) SprotectionPer your comments at WP:ANI I have protected this page for 7 days against ip/new account editing. If you wish me to lift or reduce the term please let me know. If you are happy with it I suggest you place a notice that the page is protected, and that legit ip's should either comment at the article talkpage or on their own talkpages and use the offices of a third party to let you know. Or summat like that. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Requests for Editor assistanceI was wondering if you could weigh in on the Caroline Kennedy page. There is a small dispute there about whether its appropriate to have over 2 paragraphs on the endorsements of people other than Caroline Kennedy and just 1 paragraph on her endorsement. My argument is that the article is for Caroline only, but it now looks like an article for the entire Kennedy family as far as that section is considered. Are you familiar with what the relevant policy is for this? Shouldn't the content of an article be focused on the topic of the article? That's how I've always seen it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Blaxthos, could you possibly take a look at the recent activity on the Neo-fascism page, particularly the section on the United States? I made some good-faith attempts to add pertinent, sourced, non-original, NPOV material to this section, only to have it reverted without discussion or explanation. I reverted the reversion since it was without explanation, then added information to the talk page to address the content deletion of this section. (There is some older history of this section, which may have resulted in a prior separate page being first merged into Neo-Fascism, then the content trimmed down to a paragraph). Now, the editor has gone one step further, removing content that had been there previously, and adding a label that "sources are needed" (without discussion on the talk page). But I had provided these sources, which he had just deleted!! This is quite discouraging to further participation in Wikipedia. I have been careful not to engage in a revert-war, but I feel the editor doesn't have such scruples. Given prior history on the editor's page, I am not hopeful that 1-1 discussion will be fruitful. Thank you for any insights/recommendations on how to proceed. 62.173.193.102 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Silver lining to New Coke delistingActually, you helped me out with a TfD I'm fighting: I said that your delisting was strong proof that {{maintained}} does not in any way imply ownership to other editors and that people tend to completely ignore it when doing drastic things to articles. Thanks! As for the delisting itself, I'm philosophical about it. Frankly, given the longstanding citation requests on it (which I do have sources for, in inverse proportion to the time I have to put them in), I wouldn't have approved it as a GA if I were reviewing it myself. I have tended to get defensive about previous complaints, since some of them, I've felt, are motivated by people who expected to read something confirming what they thought they knew and got annoyed that they weren't. But your complaint was, I felt, accurate and not POV-based at all. As I've said on the talk page, yes, I did like New Coke and I knew at the time I wasn't alone. Popular history, particularly on the Internet, has really gotten an entirely different take on it, more of a myth than the reality, and back in 2005 when I really started working on this I was endeavoring to write an article that would correct those misimpressions, as I think Wikipedia should do (similar myths surround The Miracle at the Meadowlands, which the article is trying to correct as well). Looking around on the Internet, I do think that article has had that effect. I would like to split the history section off (which I think I will rename Development and marketing of New Coke rather than History) and add even more contemporaneous sources I've got in a notebook filed away somewhere. I think that would fix a lot with the current article, in which the history section is getting too big. The only comment of yours which I would like to disagree with is the images. We're talking about a historical event here, with a lot of inherently irreplaceable images. In that respect, getting a free pic of a New Coke can for the lead is more than we could have expected, and doesn't an article have to have at least one free image to qualify? I haven't reviewed or submitted GAs in a while so I may be out of date with this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fox Business ChannelSo you put back in a statement that is factually incorrect, relying on synthesis of material. Additioanll there is the fact that there is no way for the average reader to listen to the program (since there is no RS) and no other RS currently exsists that even talks about this situation. After all that you threaten me with an RfC for MY conduct? Why do you continue to make these baseless accusations and threats? Arzel (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ibm 7090.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Ibm 7090.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Oh wow, I'm stunned, Blaxthos, the defender of Wikipedia from anyone who doesn't hate Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, comes around to squash any edit about O'Reilly that isn't decidedly hostile to him. What a stunner! It's nice to know that you could take time off from your busy schedule of fantasizing about a world devoid of any and all Fox News viewers to abuse Wikipedia in order to push your political viewpoints into a supposedly neutral forum. That takes a lot of courage and class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.196.88 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Fox News Controversies
Wikipedia rules are there for a good reason and need to be followed at all costs, as long as they make Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and any other sort of perceived right-wing instutition look bad. We can't have people with right-wing sympathies trying to violate the holy neutrality of Wikipedia by removing overt left-wing bias, now can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.196.88 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) MICROSI'm not sure what happened on the MICROS Systems article, but I see that you went as far as adding COPYVIO, etc., to it. I don't think any of that was necessary. I just reverted the whole thing back to a pre-advertising version. Note that I think the OPERA section isn't too bad the way it is right now. It's fine to list a few prominent customers to show that a product is in use. However, I agree that there aren't references for that section (although I believe the article to be accurate), so I added the appropriate tag. Timneu22 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Politics of Bill O'Reilly UndoHi Blaxthos, I undid your revision on the POBO page. I cited why I did it on the dicussion page. Hopefully we can come to some agreement. Arnabdas (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree about your revert; messed up. Will try again later. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC) its not too hardtext = ref_to_cite(text,limit = 100) now on to Jayson Blair --Lemmey (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) User:Blaxthos FALSELY accused me of being User:RynortHe had me banned without any provocation or proof. I am not Rynort nor has the disgraced Blaxthos ever provided ANY proof that I was aside from his Kreskin-like psychic reading that 'No one is fooled.' Yet he refuses to apologize for this ABUSE of power that Wikipedia has enabled him with. Blaxthos: Where is your proof that I am user Rynort? And, since I am not and thus there is no proof, let's just end the charade- Please apologize for this grievous power grab and resign from wikipedia. It's really time you step down. Thanks, 69.244.181.184 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
History of IBM articleI ran across this article and the sections for the 80's and 90's were in need of help. I was in the middle of making some improvements and you reverted the article with the note: "sorry but that's all unattributed original research" This is not original research, rather it is a summary of material that is published. It is unattributed because you didn't give me time to make the attributions. I was in mid edit and you reverted the article, blowing away several segments of productive time which I felt was quite unwarranted especially given the lack of attribution currently in these and other sections of the article as they exist today. The two main sources of my edits which would support all of the entries I made are:
Additional secondary sources which I planned to use in support of my edits are:
In addition, I planned to include references to IBM's annual reports which clearly demonstrate the rental to lease conversion in financial statements published by the company. I find it most disturbing that you pull the trigger on reverting my factual edits when in the previous section you allow such clearly false statements (which I had planned to fix) as: Most of those companies are now long gone as IBM competitors, except for Unisys, which is the result of multiple mergers that included UNIVAC and Burroughs, and General Electric, which has re-entered the business in recent years.[citation needed] NCR and Honeywell dropped out of the general mainframe and mini sector and concentrated on lucrative niche markets, NCR's being cash registers (hence the name, National Cash Register), and Honeywell becoming the market leader in thermostats. The IBM computer, the IBM mainframe, that earned it its position in the market at that time is still growing today. It was originally known as the IBM System/360 and, in far more modern 64-bit form, is now known as the IBM System z9. I believe there are as many factual errors than correct statements in this paragraph-- all unattributed. Why do I even bother trying to help? Twostardav (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleting talk page comments - AGFIt's not a good idea to delete talk page comments unless the edit is completely without merit. This deletion does not assume good faith. You may disagree with the premise, but the comment is a legitimate questioning of the reliability of a source in the article. --Elliskev 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Could use the opinion of someone who knows criminal lawThere is a dispute in the Illegal immigration to the United States article that could use the help of someone trained in criminal law. Specifically, Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code[1] states, "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.". Several editors have interpreted this to mean that only civil penalties apply if (1) or (2) above are violated and that criminal penalties apply only if (3) is violated. This really doesn't sound right to me. The way I see it, the basic sentence structure above is "Any alien who (1) or (2) or (3) shall (x)". For various reasons, I believe there are several editors working on the article who are really sock puppets being used to gain editorial control (these editors all started working on Wikipedia very recently, have edited only the IIUS article, and are in complete agreement with each other on everything) and, because they back each other up in disputes, this isn't a kosher use of sock puppetry. So, I have to admit that I'm having trouble with good faith in them. That being the case, the best way to handle this, in my opinion, is to get an outsider who knows criminal law to weigh in on what the law says. Thanks for any help you can provide.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the request I wrote.
Multiple Single Purpose Accounts created at around the same time (within the same three day period). All sharing common interests and backing each other up in all article disputes. Many of these accounts are never used except when consensus on content becomes an issue. Further, UHaveMetURMatch identified content written by HereICome2 as content written by himself[[1]].I'd appreciate it if you can help me out here.-75.179.157.247 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo cascade.gifThank you for uploading Image:Logo cascade.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be a bit of a fly in the ointment, but I did discuss my changes 24 hours ago with no input from anyone. Your reversion is improper as you seem to have changed the meaning of the text, making it far more restrictive than originally intended, and without the consensus of the Wikipedia community. As the person who reverted your second change said, "actually, what you reverted was, [in fact], a reversion of an undiscussed change". Additionally, quoting from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.". While you believe that everything that isn't referenced shouldn't be here, I basically concur, but that doesn't mean everything should be deleted wholesale. Such a change would give editors license to simply delete everything that is unreferenced, even those that are ambiguously referenced or are uncontroversial facts (such as "water is wet" or "Napoleon was a General"). Please discuss on the talk page before making further changes. I believe I have the consensus of Wikipedia on my side. Feel free to prove me wrong and I look forward to the discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Murphy HighFYI: You may want to watch Murphy High School, Antsuyi continues to revert the page despite being asked repeatedly to use the talk pages. I'm getting too aggravated with the behavior, so I need to step away.Altairisfartalk 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC) CMPAhi, I'm writing with regard to your comments on the center for media and public affairs page. I run this organization as a research center at george mason university, where I am a professor of communications. This entry was originally created without my knowledge by a former graduate student. Since discovering it I have periodically checked in to keep the entry valid and up to date, and to provide additional information in response to criticisms that were added. (I have NOT deleted the criticisms nor added rebuttals without documentation.) When a colleague recently informed me that the article had been challenged for verifiability, I went through the text and tried to carefully document every statement about events and occurrences with references to news accounts in major media outlets, and every statement about research findings with references to refereed journal articles and scholarly books. So I was chagrined to see a new warning up today, and especially concerned that it came from a Wikipedia editor rather than a self-interested critic. Without specificity as to the issues that generated this latest edit, there is no way I can respond to them. So I would greatly appreciate if you could spell out the particular concerns that you think need to be addressed.
And I obviously have a professional interest in this entry, which directly raises COI and NPOV issues. But my understanding of Wikipedia's position on these issues is that they apply only insofar as they are expressed in one-sided or unverified assertions. Otherwise critics of any entry would be overrepresented, since no one could respond to criticisms without being accused of COI/NPOV. (I know you are well aware of the contentiousness that characterizes current debates over the media, and particularly over allegations of media bias.) I'm in the process of trying to learn enough about Wikipedia policies, protocols, procedures et al to make my contributions to this or any other entry useful and appropriate, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism that would improve their quality. Srlichter (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) center for media and public affairs entrysorry, previous version of this text didnt have headline or date. pls bear with me; for someone of my generation, this is like learning a foreign language, but I'm working on it.
When a colleague informed me that the article had been challenged for verifiability, I tried to careful document every statement about events and occurrences with references to news accounts in major media outlets, and every statement about research findings with references to refereed journal articles and scholarly books. So I was surprised to see a new warning up today, and very concerned that it came from a Wikipedia editor rather than a self-interested critic. Without specificity as to the issues that generated this latest edit, there is no way I can respond to them. So I would greatly appreciate if you could spell out the particular concerns that you think need to be addressed. This entry was originally created without my knowledge by a former graduate student. Since discovering it I have periodically checked in to keep the entry valid and up to date, and to provide information in response to criticism that appeared. (I have NOT deleted the criticisms nor added rebuttals without documentation.) And I obviously have a professional interest in this entry, which directly raises COI and NPOV issues. But my understanding of Wikipedia's position on these issues is that they apply only insofar as they are expressed in one-sided or unverified assertions. Otherwise critics of any entry would be overrepresented, since no one could respond to criticisms without being accused of COI/NPOV. (I know you are well aware of the contentiousness that characterizes current debates over the media, and particularly over allegations of media bias.) I'm in the process of trying to learn enough about Wikipedia policies, protocols, procedures et al to make my contributions to this or any other entry useful and appropriate, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism that would improve their quality. Srlichter (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) march 14, 2008
a simple planBlaxthos, Since you lobbied to have the plot summary for A Simple Plan tossed out, I thought perhaps you'd like to volunteer to write the new summary, as suggested by the admin. Drstrangelove57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As is form for you, you totally ignore what I'm saying in favor of a string of subdued threats. You've ruined the article and now want nothing to do with rebuilding it. That's very trashy of you. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem incapable of replying without reinforcing my point. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Are you an admin? Because if you're not, stop posting on my talk page as if you are. If you aren't an admin and want to complain about me, then do it. If you are an admin, then you'll have even less trouble getting your way. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You know what pisses me off? The fact that I enjoyed the novel A Simple Plan and decided to help out with that Wikipedia entry. I put a good deal of work into that plot summary (which I didn't make from scratch, in case you were wondering) and now it is being completely thrown out for reasons that I think are arbitrary at best, malicious at worst. The reason I and many others enjoy Wikipedia is that you canlook up info on old novels, films, comics, vague historical facts, household appliances, whatever. But the more I look around the more I see articles being usurped by people intent on either shredding articles for no reason other than to exercise their ability to do so or people eagerly injecting their own POV into an article. I look at the articles for O'Reilly, Olbermann, Joe McCarthy, Hannity, Franken, Alger Hiss, whatever, and without exception they all look like they were written by people with an axe to grind, and whenever someone so much as suggests that they be balanced out, they are met with a string of rude and harsh rhetoric threatning the person's soul if they don't drop the topic completely. I like this project in theory, but this sort of BS is what ensures that Wikipedia is just barely better than garbage like Conservapedia, only at least there they tell you upfront that you're dealing with total crackpots. Like any system, Wikipedia is now invested with people who benefit from the whole rotten thing and will oppose any sort of change simply because it doesn't favor their ego. At worst, you have a case like this one where someone (me) genuinely wanted to improve the article, but everything I've suggested or worked on is simply trashed in favor of people who know how to work the system better. Meanwhile, no one else involved in this even CARES about A Simple Plan, which kicks the absurdity of the argument into new heights. And that's why I'm pissed. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
center for media and public affairs follow-upI appreciate your offer to go over the cmpa site with an eye toward finding a consensual view of what you see as questionable statements/assertions. pls let me know when you have taken another look at it and have formulated the questions that you feel need to be addressed. meanwhile, I begin to see how complicated wikipedia can be. my former grad student pstrait is independently reediting the entry and corresponding with you. so the version in which I earlier tried to address your concerns is considerably different from the site as it stands now. I dont know what the appropriately wikified response is to this kind of three (or multi-) sided dialogue, and my head is beginning to hurt from considering the possibilities. so I'll wait to hear from you before doing any edit to the site, unless some overtly factual error appears. whew! this is a brave new world. Srlichter (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Mishap avoided.If i had been drinking my coffee while reading this you would now owe me a new keyboard. Nice-looking audio setup, too... tomasz. 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for assistanceHello--You and Arzel seem to have some history. I'm not naive about the politics involved here, but some of his comments seem of the off-the-wall/throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks variety. Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Having trouble with a user that won't respect majority opinion.We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci, one user, dihydrogen monoxide, constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including dihydrogen monoxide (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion. This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,” This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12." The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately. Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except dihydrogen monoxide agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page. How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why dihydrogen monoxide seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. DrDownunder (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Image:Ibm pc xt.jpg An image that you uploaded, Image:Ibm pc xt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alx 91 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) No problem. Was just a bit confused, and while I believe that person negatively contributes to Wikipedia by letting bias get in the way, just was warning to not lightly accuse someone. It was just in good faith, no worries. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Inappropriate removalIn the Media Matters for America article, you removed this sentence: Other media figures, such as John Gibson of Fox News Channel, offered an opinion that criticized Media Matters' reporting of Limbaugh. With the reason "(Criticism: rm WP:RS and out of date (gibson got canned a while back))". This sentence was added to provide context to a statement made by Stephen Colbert which was tangentially related to the actual issue being reported in the Media Matters for America article. Colbert was responding to a statement made by John Gibson when John Gibson was speaking as a commentator for Fox News channel. As for the reliable sources claim, if you contest that the Newsbusters article did not factually report on what Gibson said, we could find another source. Also, why did you not use the talk page to discuss this edit first? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) DildoBlaxthos, it is not defamatory to state that Bill O'Reilly used a vibrating dildo on himself while talking to Andrea Makris on the phone. It's in court documents and is critical element in her sexual harrassment lawsuit. This element proves that he intended to have sex with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.230.13 (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: AccusationsBlaxthos, I thank you for your message of concern and trying to build community as well as your assumption of good faith. With regards to this particular issue many of us are having with jimintheheatl, there seems to be a big problem not just with me, but with other people as well. When a user refuses to adhere to the consensus of the discussion, it shows a lack of wanting to work with others in this project. We all looked at his source and we all claim to the conclusion that it does not belong in that particular section. All of us who disagree with jim have stated our reasons why, which he has not addressed at all, instead constantly going back to his old arguments which we have addressed. When you and I had our initial spats, you accused me of a retalliatory accusation of POV pushing when we were exchanging warnings. This guy has done the same thing, just see the recent edits on my talk page, so if you were upset at me for doing that, then I guess I can count on you to condemn his retalliatory actions I am sure? Furthermore, we even showed good faith on our part by discussing at the bottom of the page that we could include the quote in a new section that gives proper weight, notability and follows BLP about O'Reilly's thoughts on both political parties. User jimintheheatl has refused to address that and has constantly attempted to re-insert his original point into the political affilliation section where it does not belong. We have repeatedly stated that if he disagrees with this, he should file a RFC on the issue. Instead of following proper procedure despite NUMEROUS times of us politely telling him to, he defies the consensus and continues to press the issue. I am not pursuing sanctions against him yet. I only talked to the few people whom have commented on the particular issue, Ramsquire, Croctotheface and Azrel. I suppose I should have asked you as well, which is where anyone could accuse me of going wrong, since you did comment too. Still, you had not commented recently on the issue, thus I didn't. Right now I am just asking them (and you) what can be done to resolve this issue. Hopefully it won't have to go with formal procedures, but if someone keeps on defying consensus and re-inserting something that everyone feels is not notable in the section nor written in NPOV, then we obviously have to consider punitive action. Arnabdas (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimintheatl#NPOV_Warning If you have a point to make, make it, don't throw out sly remarks and comments that do nothing to improve this situation with Jimintheatl, you do a great disservice to WP by making comments like. I would ask again to refrain from disparaging me, but I don't think it will do much good at this point. Arzel (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Vets For FreedomBlaxthos I beg to differ that my edits are not neutral. Everything I edited is a matter of fact, and may be verified. Most importantly, the funding of Vets For Freedom. I think the entry should be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even that truth which they prefer not be public. I think your unediting of the truth is truly uncalled for and does a disservice to anyone who wants to look up Vets for Freedom in this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthis1either (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FNCIt just never ends, does it? As I'm sure you've noticed, I refuse to get involved with this debate again, but I've been keeping an eye on it for obvious policy violations and other nonsense. Good luck. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:Lucent_5ESS.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Lucent_5ESS.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Can you please revisit the discussion here and reply. Thank you!! Dustitalk to me 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Section TitleThanks for explaining yourself on the FNC. I didn't want to respond on the article page because it doesn't really have anything to do with FNC. If anything the situation is my fault for editing without a full picture (I've tried to explain that but... well... you know how it is sometimes). The entire thing has gotten overblown and I'm now ignoring jsn. The people's whose opinions I respect would understand my mistake. In simple terms, Gamaliel and I had an experience with an editor who would name sections in the manner of "Why Gamaliel is Biased and Wrong" or "To answer Ramsquire lies", etc. We had an arbitration on the user and Arbcom stated it was generally uncivil to title sections with the names of editors because it can be a personal attack and is usually uncivil. In my skim I saw "Debunking Blaxthos's Allegations", which admittedly was nowhere as bad as some of the ones that were deemed personal attacks, but I still editted it and made a general comment about trying not to do that for the above reasons. I didn't see yours or I would have changed it and made the same explanation. After all that background I'll now get to the point I would have made to you if I saw your title--It's my experience that using the editors name in the title like that usually gets interpreted as calling out another editor and causes temperatures to rise. There are circumstances where it may be necessary, e.g. "Editor X latest edit", but I would advise to avoid doing it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) RFPPI've left my comments there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
EA RequestedFound your name on the editor assistance list, with special mention of reliable sources and controversial topics.... I am in a difficult dispute with Colin4C regarding Talk:Anti-Americanism. In addition to that Talk page, much of the dispute is found on a page requesting mediation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14_Anti-Americanism ...which outlines my concerns about content (I moved some of it to his Talk page). He is obsessed with a sock-puppet allegation (closed), and I think he's going to oppose whatever I do. I'm not sure how to proceed. The most immediate dispute at the anti-Americanism article involves 1) a list of peer-reviewed articles which doesn't seem to include any peer-reviewed articles, and 2) an opinion that Canada is full of anti-Americanism, sourced with a single commentary in a newspaper. (These issues are easily viewed in the article history). I'm not sure what to do. Life.temp (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Apology, if I misunderstood you...I have apologized in the Fox news entry for the comments in which I said you continually repeats the untruth that the UCLA study was never published. I apologize for the confusion. By "republished", I thought you meant the original word document was never actually published in a journal... as in it was published on UCLA's website, but never republished in a journal. If that is what you meant, I of course disagree. But at this point I'm assuming you are saying the journal was published in a journal once, but not twice. So, if that is true, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I've removed the accusation that you are repeating untruths and have posted an apology. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Replied to the last, but it came back as being delayed due to insufficient disc space. Let me know if you got it or not; the email that I received said the system would continue trying to deliver it for the next 2 days. - auburnpilot talk 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) NotificationI have responded to your hypocritical allegations and attempts to mislead the administrator noticeboard. You may find the discussion here. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Good FaithI'd like to ask you to try harder to assume good faith. I must tell you, the admins are perfectly capable of knowing, as they do, that I've actually been editing for years -- just without logging in. If you could try harder to assume good faith, I'm sure I could try harder to do whatever it is that you would say that I should do. Thanks. Urzatron (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologiesIn reference to this: I meant no offense. I was trying to maintain some neutrality in my presentation of the situation to others, so as not to "poison the well" as it were. My intent was only to assume the good faith of other editors, not to impugn you or anyone else involved in the dispute. My use of the language I did was to use terms that were as calming and un-offensive as possible to all parties. If I made a mistake, it was on the side of de-escalating the dispute rather than inflaming it, and if that attempt to reduce tension and defuse the situation caused you any harm or negative problems, I am deeply sorry for that, as that was not my intent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
SignpostThat'd be great. It's a job that, depending on the week, may or may not involve much work -- some weeks, I do little or no grammar work, while other weeks, there are a few articles with very poor English. Feel free to help out wherever you can -- watch the articles here on Monday, and make edits as you see fit. If you ever are interested in writing an article or one of the blurbs in News and notes, feel free, but just general editing and grammar help would be great as well. Ral315 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ANI thread about possible RYNORT sockpuppetHi, you previously blocked for a month an IP as a possible sockpuppet of RYNORT. The IP's back and griping about you. See WP:ANI#69.244.181.184. Aleta Sing 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page/HelpI am having a problem with the usual suspects on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly Page. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks Jimintheatl (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Plot summary at A Simple PlanI am extremely disappointed to see your recent edit to A Simple Plan. While I recognise that you have issues with the length of the summary (and let me be the first to agree with you that it is still rather longer than is preferable), your re-instatement of a word-for-word copy of the revision that was the focus of the previous edit war stretches to the limit my assumption of good faith. If you believe that the plot summary is still less than optimal (and you have my full agreement if so) then I strongly suggest that you discuss the issue rationally and come to an acceptable compromise (with the emphasis being on compromise). Restarting the eidt war over this article will only get it reprotected, and possibly get you blocked. I am reasonably certain that Drstrangelove57 will revert the article again: I suggest that you do not continue the process. Happy‑melon 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Hey Blaxthos, don't worry, you win. You can throw the whole article out as you wish. I've changed my mind, not about being right and the article deserving a real plot summary, but about it being worth the trouble. But I am satisfied that anybody who so much fields a cursory glance at the history of the article's edit war can see your shiftiness, your unrepentant excuse making, your bizarre and questionable motives, and your casual disregard of the judgement of the same admin you brought in once it didn't suit you, not to mention your complete lack of actual work on the article (despite promising some). I might be a hothead who can't keep my mouth shut, and I might not be so familiar with the rules as to be able to field dozens of acronymns to support whatever change I'm pushing for no matter how absurd or offbase, but hey, at least I care about what I'm editing and am not a colossal scumbag. However, my hat is off to you for pounding me into submission, not an easy task. You've got more staying power than me, bro. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that...I removed the edits first thing this morning and further resolve not to log on to Wikipedia after an evening out... D'Oh! Jimintheatl (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Additional apologies and thanks: I guess I misunderstood your role in this community. I had appealed for editorial intervention after I felt others were deleting based on patently false grounds. I thought you had entered the debate in some sort of supervisory position. I am still mortified by my alcohol-induced edits (despite that editor's recalcitrance and sexually-suggestive insults directed at me)and regret any discomfort or embarrassment they may have caused you.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I didn't vandalize anything. That info I removed belong in the sections about the films. As it was the article was a bit of bio and then a string of information about negative reviews of Carnahan's films, which is not even remotely encyclopedic or fair. Also, please remember to assume good faith when gauging other editor's edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC) okaydo not give me bogus threats ,do not give a warning to somebody who makes a good faith change and if you wrongfully threatneted me again i will suggest an administrator block for you--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ascend Logo.gif}Thank you for uploading Image:Ascend Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UtC) You should have one from me. No rush. - auburnpilot talk 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Help on Criticisms of Bill O'ReillyUser: Jimintheatl needs help understanding what edit-warring and consensus is. Since he respects your opinion, can you please help. He's attempting to re-insert the MMfA homophobia campaign, with new language of course, despite the clear consensus against it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Flcelloguy's ToolIn case you're still curious, I fixed the several bugs the tool had, and released a new version that works. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct sourceI was in the process of correcting the link in What Happened. This is the correct link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McAuliffe_doesnt_like_McClellan_book_either.html Trilemma (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=243583 Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Gretchen CarlsonWhat is your deal? An anoyn adds vague criticism multiple times with either no reference, non-reliable sources, or sources unrelateted to Carlson in a BLP and you report me for violation of 3RR? I did nothing wrong, and if you had even bothered to read what the actual criticisms were (now that the anoyn has finally put them out there) you would see just how trite they are. Arzel (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Accusations of Personal AttacksHi Blaxthos. I have been away for a while. On May 9 you left a comment on my page asking me to not resort to personal attacks. You claimed it was on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page but I did not see anything there from my glance that was a personal attack. I do admit I had been irritated by what Croctotheface described as "flippant and recalcitrant edits" by Jimintheheatl, but from what I can tell I kept it on the issue. If you could please reference what exactly it was that was so objectionable I can review it. We shouldn't resort to personal attacks so if I accidentally did then I need to be more careful, but it would help as to find what you thought of as one. I also thank you in advance for not engaging in future personal attacks against myself and Azrel as you had on Jimintheheatl's page in the past. Arnabdas (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Fox News ChannelHi Blaxthos. I made some edits to the Fox News Channel article, mostly in the history section. Please feel free to review, edit, tweek, etc. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC) RfACheck your email. I think it's still too soon for me; stuff like this is cause for concern. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Oops...Hey there. Thanks for the heads up. I'm using huggle, and when I see that much content removed, by an anon. user who's already been warned, typically, it's vandalism. I'll check the diff better next time. Cheers, Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 01:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) What Happened articleBlaxthos, this had been the established format. You then blanked it. That is vandalism. Please do not push your point of view, or else I will have to report your abuses. Trilemma (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: RFCbot questionThe bot will do the correction for you. MessedRocker (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Notice of report on wikiquetteI have reported your recent activity here [3]. Feel free to respond as you feel necessary. Trilemma (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
FOX News bias statement OK, but NBC News bias statement is not?I am new to Wikipedia, and am hoping you can explain to me why a statement about the bias on FOX News is considered acceptable, but a similar statement about NBC News is not? Ediehl (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ediehl 26JUN08 BiasYour sources noted in the article are Slate, the Democratic Party, and Media Matters. Hardly neutral observers on the issue. Can I then assume that if I reference 3 or more similar sources highlighting NBC bias (in fact, there are quotes from some NBC staff indicating such) that my edit will not be removed from the NBC article? Your comment "The perception of bias regarding Fox News is much more pronounced than it is for NBC." is clearly your opinion, not fact. That is not my opinion, nor the opinion of millions of other people. I can't see how you can use this as an argument to keep the bias argument ON the Fox article, and take it OFF the NBC article. Ediehl (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Ediehl 26JUN08 Yes, I'm a Conservative, but...Yes, I'm a Conservative but that doesn't make me immediately "POV pushing." I was making certain articles more neutral, by changing words like progressive to liberal and removing quotation marks from things that do not require them but makes one side seem right and the other wrong. In response to Al Franken, I personally hate the guy. He's the Anti-O'Reilly. He's become a liberal windbag. He is a hypocrite and a liar (frankenlies.com is my reference.) Try researching my edits and see where I'm coming from before dismissing me as crazy or an asshole.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC) WP:ANI
your welcome
What?What political agenda am I inserting in the actual articles? Please, I want examples on this one.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) If anything, you are being biased by snuffing out my neutrality edits of political articles. You, sir, are being biased. You need to read all four books by Bernard Goldberg before we can finish this discussion.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC) iPod ArticleActually, if my question WAS answered, it could have IMPROVED the article. If the iPod headphones were in fact also microphones, that could be added to the article., I couldn't find it on the Internet or in the article itself and I wanted to know. Stop going after me for every little thing.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Bias Reply"I can also say that if your main motivation in coming to Wikipedia as a new editor is to try and discredit organizations with which you disagree politically you're probably in the wrong place -- we're more interested in having editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia than we are in having editors looking to service a particular agenda. This isn't to say you're unwelcome, but so far you're acting like a single purpose account -- you might be better off contributing to less controversial topics until you learn our policies, guidelines, and norms." My intent is to fairly represent both sides. I thought that was part of Wikipedia's mission, but I am not convinced of that at this point. I came across this discrepancy (highlighting bias on one station, with no mention of it on the other) by accident and it struck me as odd. Ediehl (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ediehl 01JUL08 See O'Reilly vs. Olbermann belowVery well, Blaxthos, direct me to the provision in the Manual of Style which says that readers should not be given cues such as (see O'Reilly vs. Olbermann below). Badmintonhist (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And you think that (see such and such) is what is meant by "instructional and presumptuous" language. You gotta be kidding. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style hardly provides a ringing endorsement of your interpretation. It says that "it is usually preferable to avoid phrases such as remember that and note that. "Usually preferable" is not exactly a hard and fast rule, Blaxthos. Moreover, it doesn't even address the parenthetical (see the Manual of Style) which, in fact, is often used in encyclopedias. As for presumptuous language, it is referring to phrases such as "of course" and "obviously" which presume prior knowledge on the part of the reader. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Perceptions of Ideological OrientationNot quite sure of the point you're making. Please explain further. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Illegal immigration to the United StatesWe've got a new rash of recently created accounts making the same edit to this article as happened before. Specifically, they are removing the reference to United States Code Title 8 Section 1325 where it states that illegal immigration is a crime. I sent you this message because you helped deal with this the last time it happened (last time, the users all ended up being sockpuppets). Your assistance in straightening out this mess would be appreciated once more.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Go AwayObviously, you have too much time on your hands, so I'll make it simple for you: Keep your patronizing condescension off my Talk Page. I have absolutely no interest in any discussion with you. Furthermore, you have no right to lecture me about anything. You will end your harassment of me NOW. And, it's just that simple. Or do you require me to draw pictures? PainMan (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Kafka rises again: I was the one attacked
No legal threatNo Threats of Lawsuit MadeI made NO threat to file a law suit against wikipedia or ANYONE for that matter. In fact, I never used the word "lawsuit", "attorney" or "lawyer." I only stated that I will respond to libel. This is a right that everyone has in the US (and all other Anglo-Saxon countries whether by statute or common law). Therefore, I completely reject the interpretation of my mention of a legal right as a "threat." I reiterate: if I continue to be subjected to obscene and abusive attacks I reserve all the right to take all legal measures (meaning "measures within the law" If I were serious (about suing), someone would either have been, or would soon be the recipient of a visit by a process server. I have, at this point, no intention of taking legal action against anyone. ). Truce?I have no problem with a truce. If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. As always, there are exceptions. If either of us should make a factual mistake, I see problem with notifying each other, or things of that nature. If you wish to discuss whatever subject in a civil manner, I have no problem with that either. I don't hold grudges (unless you're my ex-wife) nor do I "wage wars" against people (as much as I have been tempted a few times). In fact, I have formed friendships that have started off far more acriminously than this. Anything is possible. But, frankly, I don't understand how a post that was obviously parody could have caused this much fuss. WarriorYes, I do fight for my beliefs. And whether you mean that contemptuously or merely descriptively, I accept it proudly. A person unwilling to fight for his principles doesn't have any. Many contributionsI have made many contributions that I feel have improved the quality of wikipedia articles; and, by extention, wikipedia in general. If you find these contributions to have been of no value, I don't no what else to say except that, obviously, I disagree. I have also co-authored one article; see Agri Decumates. I am particularly proud to have taken part in the collaboration that created this article. (Though, in the interests of accuracy, I must say that all graphics came from my collaborator.) With 2M+ articles it's difficult to find any topic which has not been "done" yet so I think I can also, justifiably take pride in the fact that I was the first person to write an article on this subject (it was sheer co-incidence that my collaborator happened to be working on an article on this subject at the same time I was; rather like Newton and Leibniz and calculus, I happened to post mine first). ControversyI have been a party to several controversies, but who hasn't? Many (contentious) articles concern subjects that, to say the least, stir strong feelings and touch of "core beliefs". Controversy is natural. If you don't like how I conduct myself in controversy, again, I don't know what to say but, "obviously, I disagree It can, of course, go to extremes (as everything seems to these days). The mess about Steve Irwin's article comes to mind. I eventually just gave up. The slightest correction of grammar or spelling was instantly reverted. It was a flat-out circus. Not an officialIf you are not an administrator (and while I know wikipedia does not use the usual terminologies, there are certainly analogues to the "admins" and other positions found on more standard chat boards), then fine. We can discuss our issues vis-a-vis. I thought you were an admin (for the sake of brevity let us agree to use that term in its standard sense) because of the, frankly, imperious and patronizing tone of the first two of the three posts you've placed on my Talk Page. A more, ah, collegial tone would be far better way for you to approach people. Or, to use one of my grandmother's country sayings, "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar." Especially when the supposed "violation" of some wikipedia "policy" was clearly not intended as such. Nor do I appreciate your attempt to use wikipedia policies to beat me about the head or neck. Now, do you wanna be buddies, or what? PainMan (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC) BarnstarsDo you have to write everything in a condescending tone? And, I would have thought it would have been understood the tone as, again, being one of parody, farcical even. Is Monty Python really being serious in the song (from The Meaning of Life) in their musical number, "Every Sperm Is Sacred"? Is Rush Limbaugh being literal when he says, "Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair?" The examples I could adduce are endless. Do you consider anything funny? You had to know both the post about Barnstars and the post I made on that ridiculous article on the mythical "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" were not in anyway intended seriously. Frankly, I have no idea where you're coming from. I am reminded of a line from that horrible third season episode of Star Trek: The Original Series, The Way to Eden, "Brother, you don't reach." (Does the joke, however retroactive, of Charles Napier as a "space" hippie reach you?) There are very, very few people whom I can't figure out. And this I mean seriously. Talking to you feels like walking blind folded through a field of punji sticks. Anyone with any sense can figure out that an award that can be handed out from one editor to another, without any sort of vetting process, is, as you describe it, a "kindness." It's a little more than that, imo, because of the person it came from. One of the greatest Righters (pun intentional) of Liberal/Socialist bias that Wikipedia has. Thus, I take especial pride in it.
Bottom-line itSo what's it to be between us? War? Mutual inattention? Truce? The ball, as they say, is in your court. PainMan (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We haven't exactly gotten off on the right foot......given our acrimonious exchanges. However, whilst reverting a couple of paragraphs in the Tim Russert article something went seriously whacko with the References. I've looked and looked and looked and I can't figure if I accidentally did it or if the problem was there before. I simply don't know. I am somewhat dyslexic so, perhaps, I've missed something. If you mean what you say about a "cooperative community", well, I need some cooperation--lest someone gets the fool idea I was "vandalizing" the page. PainMan (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
PainMan (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) John EdwardsI understand why you deleted this talk section (but not why you didn't delete Talk:John Edwards#FYI: National Enquirer story, BLP issues but I think it is a mistake not to have a talk page section that addresses why this shouldn't be included in the article to (hopefully) preempt those newbies who desire to do so. However, if you are going to be vigilant to revert these discussions and the additions to the article, I guess there is no problem. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Wow! My second barnstar!Muchas gracias Blaxthos. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Edwards alternativeWould appreciate your feedback at Talk:John Edwards#Request for comments on alternatives. Thanks! You obviously got a bad rap. Hey, I've been criticized in the past from the National Review Online! :-) ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I assumed good faith until he started claiming consensus when it was against him. Additionally, I made no personal attacks as my comments were about his actions, not him personally. Thanks for playing though, not sure why you decided to include that comment after the discussion was over. AzureFury (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Edwards coatrackThere is a discussion on the talk page about this -- could you please come and explain your position? Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Right. I typed those comments in a hurry, as I have to depart my home rather soon. But I can see where I might have inadvertently subconscously implied the affair was anything but "alleged". Ethereal (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The ways and means of RfCsI know you are a veteran of this page, so I hope you don't take this advice as patronizing, but will understand if you do. I have always found the following process helpful in resolving page disputes via an RfC:
By going through this process, you end up with the assurance that arguments have been clearly laid out, assisting new editors to understand the issues and not only your viewpoint, and that all editors have participated. This avoids new editors having to read the entire talk page and participating editors having to rush in to get their viewpoints across, Otherwise, you end up giving the impression that you are controlling the page process to your advantage and I know that wasn't your intent. Such a deliberative way of doing things makes for calmer discussions and enhances the quality of outside comments because they understand the scope of the problem. Obviously, if the dispute is intractable and you are up against an uncooperative editor, then unilateral action may be required. I'd like to think that didn't describe our situation. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) EdwardsFighting with pigs...etc etc. So I suppose you might pick your battles more carefully in future and be less quick to assume bad faith and throw around personal insults. You argued that nothing belonged in the article and I fought you and defeated your view, with (contrary to your claim) no significant developments in the story. You then refused 300 words, called me a pig and almost immediately with no further developments a full article gained a strong consensus against your position. Well now it turns out there was only one "pig" in this story, the man who you twisted wikipedia to defend, needlessly shaming our site insulting others and beclowning yourself to defend. Let this be a lesson in humility for you.Bonobonobo (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
the good fightThanks - I don't wear out easily. Tvoz/talk 07:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) McCain edit warIn Talk:Political positions of John McCain#Possible compromises, you advised Trilemma to accept the compromise and move on. He rejected your sage advice. He and Arzel have been tirelessly edit warring on the point. What irks me even more than the substance of their edits is the incessant reference to an alleged established consensus. In practice, their argument translates to meaning that, once a majority (not consensus) of editors rejected a particular version, then no further editing could be undertaken, no discussion of compromise was permissible, and the subject was banned from the article until the end of time. I've tried to explain that that's not how Wikipedia works, but I appear to be talking to the wall. I'm reaching out to you on this because you were one of those who opposed the full quotation but accepted that making some reference to it was an appropriate outcome of the post-survey discussion. You said, and I agreed, that "we're not going to call another !vote." Unfortunately, at this point, I don't know if there's anything we can do other than repeat the whole exercise. Do you have any ideas? JamesMLane t c 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) -- Noroton (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My fnc editSo let me get this straight in the first few paragraphs fox is allowed to be critized but NBC isn't, doesn't sound very fair does it?? Then again wikipedia isn't about being fair or correct now is it?? Cedarpointohio2 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC) why delete Plutoxin7?Um seriously, it served as one of the driving forces in the plot. It was the way they convinced Plissken to actually go to LA in the first place.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I am a "newbie" so I am confused? I made my first edits and before the ink is dry, they were reverted. What exactly did I do wrong? Steve Wiki4stevecooper (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator); "youtube video""mislead". By whom? By me? If so please point out the misleading part since it absolutely wasn't my intention. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Countdown Special Comment of August 18If the description of Olbermann's special comment comes from the "source itself" all the more reason not to use it. A politically biased commentator's description of a politically biased set of comments is likely to be politically biased. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) You realize, of course, that most of the other "special comment" descriptions are also "original research" and that none of them are properly sourced . By the standard you are holding me to none of these descriptions should even exist. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) McCain commentThanks for that reference...I searched google for quite awhile looking for a "reliable source" quoting him. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Bethany Joy GaleottiHello, I understand that I have been making numerous edits and pages concerning information that isn't exactly news worthy. I was just hoping that you wouldn't dismiss the articles that I created as the result of an overzealous fan. In trying to update her pages I thought it would improve the information this website provides on Bethany Joy Galeotti by making her discography page and others concerning her music career. If you can give me some specific pointers on how to improve the pages so that they aren't deleted that would be wonderful! I'm not sure if I should make the articles you have nominated for speedy deletion into stubs or what. I'd really appreciate some help because I'd hate to see these articles deleted. Please respond. Thank you. HushSound (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Hey!Thank you for the quick response, I appreciate it. I hope I don't get annoying with all the questions I have but I'm not exactly an expert at this. I've tried to cite as many reliable sources such as her official website and I'm not sure if it gets any more reliable than information coming straight out of the horses mouth so... Here are the links to the articles you have nominated for speedy deletion: Songs in My Pockets Preincarnate Come On Home The Starter Kit I'm not sure what exactly to do in order to improve the articles. Shall I convert them into stubs? Or what do I do to make them into appropriate articles? I know you sent me the warning but I think it'd be easier for me to understand the rules coming from you. :) Again thanks! HushSound (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Keith OlbermannMissed the point? I don't think there's much of a "point" to this article, other than to promote Mr. Olbermann and MSNBC. There's no reason that this garbage can't be included in his own article. I'll have to say, Blax, that I'm surprised to see such a spirited defense of this article. I've always thought of you as a "deletionist", although as I become more of a deletionist myself, I often find myself agreeing with you. But not on this. Mandsford (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
HelloI noticed you removed my addition of Bill O'reilly being criticized by Free Press/Bill Moyers. This is fact. While I may not have the time to expand it as well as some other sections, please do not go about removing it. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/a_media_ambush_in_rep_wexler_v.html It's in comments though so its not viewable until someone else adds more info to it. Feel free to change things as you see. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/engage/blog/bill-moyers-quoto039reilly-factorquot-producer-go-it ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC) FoxNews FAQI am not sure why you changed the FAQ to encompass something more than the lead of the article. It seems that the FAQ was made to summarize discussion of the introduction, not the entire article. Also, I am not sure why you believe there was sneaky wording. I asked for discussion on the talk page and you seemed to agree [6] with the additions. I'm a little confused by your apparent change in attitude towards it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC) This didn't even need an afd discussion. You could've just merged it to Pipa, which is exactly what I did. Also, "merge and delete" violates GFDL, but I did merge and redirect, as I found it a logical enough choice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) BiasHere's a gnews search. There are many reviews, it was a well-hyped and well-known book, remember seeing stacks of it at bookstores. Significant parts of this book and this book are devoted to countering it. I'd take long odds it wouldn't fail AfD. I agree the article is not too good, though you may be deleting too much, some summary is OK. There are refs, some oblique, e.g to Franken and an NYT review on the talk page that attest to its notability. Regards,John Z (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Easterns Automotive GroupPlease see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easterns Automotive Group. --Eastmain (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Bill O'Reilly Criticism/Reliable SourcesHello. I feel I'm in danger of crossing some line (again...) on this page. I thought we had resolved the RS issue that Arzel had raised on the teen pregnancy edit. A new user, Tom, who was not involved in the discussion, is now deleting sources on the same grounds. Can you advise?Jimintheatl (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Blaxthos. I've added some references to the article, which might address your concerns. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Your continued attempt to ping
I've warned him over the bad faith G10's. The above comment by him is just stupid. He hasn't edited today, but I've got him "on my radar" so to speak. Hopefully he'll grow up and engage in the project. One hopes so. He's had sufficent warnings, and if I'd been less charitable he'd already be blocked under WP:POINT Pedro : Chat 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Anthropos yia oles tis douliesI am not sure about the English title, do not remove the article, for now until the article is tidy, put the Spelling correction template instead on top of the article, thank you. Pumpie (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC) The article will no be removed, the reason that a much of that article including the top, the table, cast and the website sections are not affected. Put the spelling/punctuation template at the plot section, that is the only part of the article that are not okay, thank you. I will properly translate by more words and not less on upcoming articles that are coming soon right here on the 'pedia. Pumpie (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) BlogsI would have to take a closer look to know if your assertion that it is "standard practice" for newspapers to subject their blog posts to the same editorial review, but I know that, recently, for example, NBC was forced to disclose that its blogs were not subject to the same editorial review that their scripts are (following a dustup with some reporter's opinion working its way into a blog post). Since the source in question is from CNN, and not a newspaper, and given the recent situation from NBC (and the lack of any affirmative statement from CNN that I can find), I'm still hesitant. Also, there's no mention of "blogs" on wp:rs, and a minor footnote on wp:v doesn't leave me convinced, especially when it comes to a wp:blp. Feel free to respond here. user:j (aka justen) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Section deletion on Talk:Fox News ChannelThe edit summary for your recent deletion of a section in the Fox News talk page (headed "So What's Wrong With Promoting Conservative Ideals?") read "stupid popups, removed per TALK/NOT". It is unclear, however, what your objection was: As I tried to explain in my edit summary, "According to WP:TALK, 'It is always a good idea to explain your views," and "WP:SOAP applies to articles, not talk pages." You may have intended to remove a section headed "Fox News Viewers' Foreign Policy instead, which is not mine (although, because of quirks in Wikipedia's diff tool, it would be easy to make such a mistake.) I don't use "popups," but apparently you were having trouble with it. However, if it wasn't a simple mistake, and you were actually objecting to the content of my section on the talk page, I'd appreciate a more thorough justification for the deletion--at least so that I can avoid similar errors in the future. After all, if WP:TALK does not mean what it says, then how can it be interpreted? Rangergordon (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) When is enough enough?
Advice PleaseI know you know that I am seeking advice on how to get across to Jim that a lot of his contributions are not in the best interest in the project. As you also know, we have had a lot of problems with Arzel in the past with his white-washing of articles. My post on the Criticisms of BOR page was only to say that Arzel is right in the limited sense that there should be some agreed level for inclusion, and that we should strive to get the best sources. It is not meant as any endorsement of Arzel, as in my opinion Jim and Arzel seem to be mirror images of each other. Of course, as expected Croc immediately took my post to call into question my conduct [7]-- as if that has any relevance to the point I am trying to make. I'm asking you for your thoughts on how do I get across that Jim's conduct should be addressed, considering a) the subject of Jim's contribution is an unlikeable fellow (to say the least) and b) the whole [Tu quoque] argument that is sure to follow. BTW-- I am aware of your bias in this situation regarding the users involved, the subject, and the subject matter, but again I trust your reasoning, and am sure you can help me. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
FNC RFCBlax, I'm writing to appeal to you to remove your comments regarding the FNC RFC that I nominated. I'm making a legitimate attempt to adhere to policy. In all fairness, I removed a comment of mine to ensure it doesn't get cluttered or invite other conversation within the RFC section. I believe that your "big ass red box" and follow on comments under my "vote" don't really help the issue of finding out if consensus has changed. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Hi! In regard to your recent edit to the findings of the FNC RFC, I will assume WP:good faith, and have reverted it in accordance with WP:RFC. There is no mention of voting what-so-ever. I thank you for your comments in the RFC and look forward to your most valuable contributions in the future. Should you have a question regarding this RFC, please familiarize yourself with WP:RFC. Congratulations on your shiny "virtual" award below! Wikiport (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Guess you deserve this
On the MSNBC leadWhether or not specific observers of MSNBC are cited in the introduction makes little difference to me. I was only following the advice of your esteemed colleague Warren who had flagged the item for its lack of specifically named "critics and ...observers." A bit ironic, aye? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) SynthpopHow the hell is any of the material you deleted mine? That stuff was originally there. Also, you don't realise that Electroclash and A Different Drum DO exist officially notably and are sourced in their articles. Perhaps their sections need to be rewritten, but certainly not deleted as they are notable revivals. Put "citation needed" here and there, or cut an paste sources from their articles/find new ones for them. I'll help. In addition, other people were pointing out OTHER things as original research, not that, so it's just you pointing that out. Thanks. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC) ... which you had prod'ed has been restored. If you wish to pursue deletion of this page, you may do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) BLP and O'ReillyI'm responding here because i don't want to take up anymore on the article talk page from what is really a side issue. My understanding is that you don't get around BLP by simply saying "let's discuss" at the end. So no you don't have to bring sources to the talk page (it helps though), but you also could and should present the info without the negative characterizations attached. Specifically he characterized O'Reilly negatively and titled the section inappropriately. He could have gotten his concerns addressed just as equally by not going to such polemic language in the first place. when I first read it, it came across as one of the soapboxy rants that pop up from time to time. I'll agree that erasing the entire section may be a bit much though, and and also agree that paraphrasing the other statements would have been a more effective and less restrictive alternative. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
PalinPlease comment briefly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Book_Banning Right now, the article only says she inquired as to censoring books, without even saying why. That's oversanitizing the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hello ghostriderI'm not going to waste any more space in the Olbermann talk section, Blax. The fact of the matter is that I didn't propose any change to the Olbermann article that wasn't properly sourced. We all have our opinions about the people described in Wikipedia. You, in particular, have strong opinions about them. Not too long ago I had to edit your piece on the book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency because it editorialized not in the article's talk page but in the article itself. Moreover, I did so without lecturing you at the time. Go back and check if you've forgotten. By the way, that Angler article still has only one reference, an article by the book's author. Not exactly the most unbiased, "reliable, third party source" now, is it? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Ownership?You left a message on my page, accusing me of "ownership" in the Hannity article. There was a version, agreed to by everyone involved as being neutral and well-written. Then 2 editors come in and make changes without discussion. All I have done is revert back to the version that was agreed on by consensus and asked for discussion before making changes. That is not ownership. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Debate at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008Could you take a look at this debate: Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#RfC comments? It looks like pretty obvious censoring to me. They're trying to suppress this addition. Apparently jihadis support a McCain presidency. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Tim Russert
QuestionBlaxthos, why did you revert my edit to Talk:Hurricane Katrina? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong article referenced in warning of Fru23?At least I think you did, since I can't see anything in the history of the main BoR page. I think you meant the Criticism article instead. Just a heads up so it can be fixed (I don't want to malfactor other's comments). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Back from block, Fru23 again deletion entire sections, both of which I think were [attempted] deleted before the block.
Olby and HillaryThe whole criticism of Hillary section is "synthesis of thought", you say? How so? Obviously, Olbermann made the criticisms of Clinton which is really all the section contends, once the part about Obama also appearing on Fox (and not being criticized by Olbermann) is removed. I suppose one could contest the use of the word "berated" but that would hardly merit deleting everything. As Olbermann might say "Explain yourself, sir. Explain yourself or resign!" Badmintonhist (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Calm DownRemain civil, I have attacked no one and please tell me how attempting to abide by BOLP is pov pushing. Please stop lying. Fru23 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC) O'Reilly and Fru23Here we go again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (2nd nomination) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is that a Wikipedia:THREAT? Fru23 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
CheckuserDespite the "not related" result from that new guy, I'm convinced he's the same guy, so we'll just have to keep an eye on him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
|
